Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
09.24.2008 9:00 pm

Thursday editorial: Misleading Missouri on health care

  • Email this
  • Print this

uninsured_opt.jpgThe number of uninsured Missouri children increased by 44 percent since Gov. Matt Blunt took office in 2005, a fact we noted on this page Sept. 14. In a letter to the editor that we published Wednesday, Mr. Blunt complained that the editorial “misled readers and failed to fully compare Missouri with Illinois.”
In the interest of fair comparison, here are facts, complete with source citations. You can look them up and decide for yourself what is accurate, what is misleading and what is spin.

Let’s start with the editorial’s premise, which the governor’s complaint letter failed to address at all: Between 2005, when Mr. Blunt became governor, and 2007, the number of uninsured children in Missouri increased by 44 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. During that same period, the number of uninsured Illinois children was reduced by 1.7 percent.
• Unable to disprove these simple facts, Mr. Blunt bragged, instead, about Missouri’s State Children’s Health Insurance Program known as MC+ for Kids. Among comparable state programs, he wrote, Missouri’s is among the few that provide care to children in families earning up to 300 percent of poverty, about $51,500 for a family of three.
But Illinois also has a program called All Kids that is open to all Illinois children regardless of family income, and it’s the major reason why the state reduced the number of uninsured kids between 2005 and 2007— just the opposite of the trend in Missouri.
• Mr. Blunt’s letter also failed to mention that in cutting medical coverage for low-income working families in 2005, he made it harder for many of Missouri’s children to qualify for the MC+ program he praised so effusively.
Just before Mr. Blunt signed the Medicaid cuts in 2005, there were 554,286 Missouri children enrolled in MC+ for Kids, according to figures from the state Department of Social Services. At the end of June 2008, 486,522 children were enrolled, a decline of 67,764 — 12.2 percent — on Mr. Blunt’s watch.
• The governor’s letter said that the total number of uninsured Missourians fell by 43,000 between 2006 and 2007. It failed to point out, however, that the number increased by 104,000 after Mr. Blunt’s first year in office. Overall, the number of uninsured Missourians of all ages has increased by 61,000 under Mr. Blunt, according to U.S. Census figures. That’s a 9 percent increase. During the same period, the number of uninsured Illinois residents fell by 30,000.

Ordinarily, we accord readers fairly wide latitude to respond, in print and online, to published editorials. As editors and reporters at the state’s largest newspaper, we realize that we have a larger platform from which to make our points.
But as the governor of the state, Mr. Blunt has a significant platform as well, and despite his lame-duck status, he has used it with increasing frequency to launch misleading claims against people and institutions he perceives as political enemies. As those attacks are amplified through other media outlets, some Missourians may not realize that Mr. Blunt’s claims may be factually incorrect.
For example, he repeated a misleading claim in his letter to the Post-Dispatch this week: “When I took office in January 2005, I inherited a $1.1 billion budget deficit.”
There was no deficit. Missouri law does not permit it. The $1.1 billion figure Mr. Blunt cited and has cited in the past represented the difference between budget wish lists prepared by state department heads and the state’s projected revenues for his first year in office. The difference between the two cannot legitimately be called a budget deficit in which actual state spending exceeds revenues.
Mr. Blunt is entitled to his own opinions and to the respect accorded the office of governor. He is not entitled, however, to his own set of facts.

Post-Dispatch file photo.

17 comments

Comments are closed.

Under Republican governence, both nationally and state-wide, it is apparent that just chanting the mantra “lower taxes” doesn’t meet the needs of it’s citizens. Missouri particularly is suffering with infra-structure deficits cited by crumbling bridges and roads. So too is the health care structure in our state. Governor Blunt’s total disregard for the fate of those who relied upon the safety-net the Medicaid program provided in order to keep up the chanting “lower taxes” was typical of the party-first, citizens-last that Republicans seems to embrace. The fact that our state and country is facing such astronomical deficits and financial disaster is further testament to the flawed platform of “party-first, citizens last”. At some point in time we are all called upon to pay more taxes to shore-up failing systems. In the case at hand in the country today the bill has now risen to 700 Billion Dollars.

— elder
6:32 am September 25th, 2008

> As editors and reporters at the state’s largest newspaper, we realize
> that we have a larger platform from which to make our points.

And the way you use this platform to put forth misleading attacks on Republicans, and to so consistently ignore the lies and scandals surrounding Democrats (except for, inexplicably, Mr. Blagojevich) that it can’t possibly be a mere oversight, is shameful.

— Nick Kasoff
9:10 am September 25th, 2008

What is misleanding for $200?

— A CENTRIST
11:54 am September 25th, 2008

Nick,

I know you looked up the links on this editorial. Please tell me what you think is misleading.

— John G. Carlton
1:11 pm September 25th, 2008

Doc, just how many Great Society offspring do you think the taxpayers should support in addition to our own? My wife and I fed, clothed, housed, educated, transported, and provided health care for our own three children. Despite hard work and sacrifices for our own we also had much of our earnings confiscated to do the same for the stray children of other parents who put cell phones, big screen TVs, tobacco and alcohol ahead of insurance for their offspring.

When they start neutering the government sponsored human baby factories like they do stray cats I might understand some of your guilt complex. Meanwhile my contributions to private charity give me a clear conscience without supporting the bureaucratic waste and theft by taxation involved in government worshiping socialism.

I resent being forced under penalty of law to pay child support for children I did not father. I might resent it less if the PD occasionally used its “larger platform” to investigate and expose some of the bureaucratic waste, corruption, and fraud inherent in all these bloated programs.

— A#
1:36 pm September 25th, 2008

I find it just a bit disingenuous on the part of the Post-Dispatch Editorial Department, that they took issue with Governor Matt Blunt’s “Letter to the Editor” from Wednesday, but not mine that appeared on Tuesday. I guess that the Post-Dispatch staff does not think the lack of child support enforcement in this state has contributed to the large number of children on MC+.

I have no political axe to grind, nor am I running for public office at this point in time. However if the Post-Dispatch is interested in REAL facts, perhaps they should challenge my letter as they did the Governor’s? I think readers of the Post-Dispatch would be better served if the paper did its own investigation of child support enforcement, or lack of it, in the State of Missouri.

A FACTUAL study by the Post and its staff would be of the utmost help in this area.

— Mike Clynch
2:38 pm September 25th, 2008

A#

It’s hard to tell where to start with your comment. I’m sure you don’t really mean to advocate either involuntary sterilization of or forced abortions for poor people.

You also seem to be saying that Great Society programs like Medicare have failed. I’ll leave it up to you to make an explicit case for doing away with Medicare. But let me point out that when Medicare began, the elderly made up about half the people living in poverty. Today, they make up about 10 percent. Which is the largest group living in poverty today, you ask? That would be children.

Let’s get back to the original editorial.

It pointed out that the number of uninsured kids in Missouri increased by 44 percent between 2005 and 2007. As we pointed out, some significant part of that loss seems to come from kids no longer covered by private health insurance.

That’s worrisome for health care economists, because private health insurance is how most Americans pay for care (again, I’ll leave it up to you to make the case that they’d be better off without that benefit).

In the past, some of the slack caused by workers and their families losing private health insurance has been picked up by expanding government programs, which is what happened in Illinois. But bear in mind that as the economy tanks, eligibility for existing programs will grow so the effect of any expansion will be magnified.

Clearly, public officials need to be thinking about how to keep the system of employer-based health insurance viable or bad things will happen (even more Americans will be uninsured and the health care system would face financial collapse).

But that can’t happen when the governor is in denial about — and trying to mislead voters about — the number of people who have become uninsured during his term in office.

— John G. Carlton
3:45 pm September 25th, 2008

A couple with 3 kids can make up to $36,000 and get free insurance for their kids. They can pay a premium and participate in the state program with income up to $72,000 a year. In 2007, those in the 4th quintile for household income - that is, those between 60% and 80% highest income - had a median income of $79,000. So unless we’re going to offer MC+ to the very richest families, we’ve opened the doors as wide as we can.

— Nick Kasoff
5:33 pm September 25th, 2008

The republicans responding to this blog obviously are self-centered oafs who would do nothing to help someone else no matter the “cost”. Scared little people feverishly trying to keep every cent they have like they will be rewarded for having wealth in some sick afterlife.

— willys
7:48 pm September 25th, 2008

willys… You are obviously one of those people who thinks using the powers govenment to steal from others and redistribute demonstrates your selfless “compassion.” Voluntary contributions of time and money are discounted by you government worshiping bomb throwers in the class war being waged by the left. Your puppet master, George Soros, might be impressed, but this taxpayer is not.

— A#
7:23 am September 26th, 2008

Doc Carlton… Your editorial and response to my comments support continued expansion of the role of government and liability of taxpayers in meeting personal needs. Yet you never address the question of where it stops. Are there any limit

— A#
7:32 am September 26th, 2008

Sorry… fat fingered the submit button in mid sentence. Doc, I’m just curious whether you accept any limits on government short of full blown communism? I’m not being facetious or hateful with that question. I sincerely wonder how much government intrusion would be enough for the liberal agenda. Do you have a limit of any kind?

— A#
7:59 am September 26th, 2008

Since A#’s response to Mr. Carlton wasn’t complete, I will step in:

> I’m sure you don’t really mean to advocate either involuntary
> sterilization of or forced abortions for poor people.

Mr. Carlton, I realize that forcing welfare recipients to use contraception would be considered cruel by the left. I also realize that placing any sort of a “family cap” is also considered cruel. But for some reason, forcing working people to pay taxes to provide support for others who do not work is not considered cruel. Forcing me to give up the fruit of my labors in order to support somebody else … sort of sounds like slavery to me.

During the Great Depression, welfare didn’t mean sitting at home watching Oprah and getting a check once a month. Rather, it meant going out and working, and getting a check from the government, when private work wasn’t available. Across the nation, our parks are filled with the fruit of this labor, done under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Imagine the riots we’d have today if we actually expected welfare recipients to spend months in the forests of our nation, felling trees and hauling rocks, building things for the next generation to enjoy. No television, no air conditioning, just three hots and a cot, lots of hard work, and a check to support your family.

> You also seem to be saying that Great Society programs like
> Medicare have failed. I’ll leave it up to you to make an explicit
> case for doing away with Medicare.

A#’s comments had nothing to do with Medicare. Nice straw man, though. Regardless, while Medicare and Social Security have provided limited help at reducing poverty amongst the elderly, the fact is that anyone who reaches retirement age without substantial assets beyond this will remain in poverty. Ultimately, it isn’t these government programs which have reduced poverty amongst the elderly, but rather, their own hard work and sacrifice, along with private sector prosperity which boomed with but a few pauses from World War II through the end of the 20th century.

> Which is the largest group living in poverty today, you ask?
> That would be children.

And are they in poverty because we don’t have enough government programs to take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t? Or is it because irresponsible people, with no education, no useful work skills, and no ambition, are having children? Even those who don’t work have cable television, cell phones, and air conditioning, not to mention subsidized housing, free food, and health care. On the other hand, those who work and try to make it on their own are rewarded with … being taxed to pay for those who don’t.

> Clearly, public officials need to be thinking about how to keep
> the system of employer-based health insurance viable or bad things will
> happen

Or, we could move away from employer-based health insurance, and allow individuals to make their own choices. Of course, this would require some adjustments - for example, while group policies accept everyone, individual policies reject those with chronic health problems, and that would have to somehow change. Tax policies would also have to be adjusted to reflect systemic changes. And of course, employee compensation would have to be increased in order to reflect the cost of health insurance.

Ultimately, if this could be accomplished, it would be better than our current system. Employer-based health insurance compels people to make bad employment decisions in order to obtain or keep health insurance. It places employers, rather than consumers, in the position of making health care decisions for their employees. And it creates a tax incentive for overspending on health insurance. How anyone could consider these to be good things is beyond my imagination.

— Nick Kasoff
8:46 am September 26th, 2008

Thanks, Nick. I couldn’t have said it better. I just felt my original comments were in plain English and didn’t feel any need to explain further. I happen to be pro choice. The baby factories should be allowed to voluntarily choose between cranking out additional offspring they can’t support or not. However, the taxpayers’ should not be obligated to stand in for the father and fund the result of the wrong choice. Of course any abused or severely neglected children should be removed and put up for adoption or into an orphanage rather than allowed to prowl the neighborhoods.

— A#
11:08 am September 26th, 2008

Geez, Nick. If A# wasn’t talking about the signature Great Society program, Medicare, which one was he talking about?

You started your comments by claiming the editorial was misleading. Have I missed the part where you tell me how it was misleading?

Oh, wait, I found something misleading. It seems you think that a family earning $36,000 a year can get free health insurance. At that income level, they wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid and would have to pay premiums and co-pays to enroll in MC+ for Kids. In fact, the amount the state takes in from premiums paid by the highest income enrollees in MC+ for Kids is more than the cost of providing care to their children.

— John G. Carlton
11:21 am September 26th, 2008

Doc….. A# is talking about the ENTIRE Great Society mindset of government displacement of self reliance, personal discipline, family, fatherhood, volunteerism, charity, community, and other means of subsistence in a free society.

Medicare is just another insurance program with premiums, co-pays, and benefits. The difference is that other programs insure the policyholder paying the premium and compete in the marketplace.

On the other hand, Medicare is designed to redistribute wealth, transfer responsibility, and foster government dependence that will translate into votes for incumbent politicians and jobs for career bureaucrats. Its costs have been many, many times the original estimates of the government worshipers. Under new Medicare expansion the taxpayers are buying drugs from corporations that are protected from competition and exempted from anti-trust rules by our own government.

Yet the left wants even more government to feed their lust for power over others. Well a look at finance, energy, education, and infrastructure will provide a little insight into what is ahead as the socialists continue acquire that power. Math and human nature will eventually prevail where common sense has failed.

— A#
1:19 pm September 26th, 2008

Mr. Carlton - I could write a book on all the sleazy and misleading attacks this newspaper makes on Republicans. But unfortunately, that endeavor wouldn’t pay well, and I have to earn a living. But here’s one for you: Blunt “repeated a misleading claim in his letter to the Post-Dispatch this week” regarding inheriting a budget deficit. You say, “There was no deficit. Missouri law does not permit it.” Blunt’s point is that he had to make cuts, because departmental budgets exceeded projected revenue. You are technically correct that ultimately, the state is not permitted to have a deficit, which is precisely why Blunt had to make the cuts.

As far as the number of people on MC+, there are currently 446,000 children in the program, of a total 1.4 million children in the state. That is to say, nearly a third of Missouri children are on MC+. Of those, less than 20,000 paid a premium. For those of us who do not support single payer, government managed health insurance, that is a frighteningly high number.

Now, back to misleading statements made by Post-Dispatch writers, here’s one that should sound familiar to you:

“Oh, wait, I found something misleading. It seems you think that a family earning $36,000 a year can get free health insurance. At that income level, they wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid and would have to pay premiums and co-pays to enroll in MC+ for Kids.”

To debunk this misleading statement, I would direct you and your readers to the following page:

http://www.dss.mo.gov/fsd/mchild.htm

According to this page, a family of 5 may earn up to $3,100 a month and receive free insurance for the kids. Even in a country with 57 states, that comes out to more than $36,000 a year.

With payment of a premium, a family of 5 is eligible up to $6,200 a month, or nearly $75,000 a year. Since they don’t have the premiums online, I called and got them - again, for a family of 5, which would be 3 or 4 covered children:

Household income Total premium for all children
$3,100 to $3,824 - $29 a month
$3,825 - $4,650 - $95 a month
$4,650 - $6,200 - $233 a month

And no exclusion for preexisting conditions. I’ll be you wish Lee offered you a bargain like that for YOUR kids. They don’t, but you’re taxed to pay for it for somebody else’s kids.

— Nick Kasoff
2:20 pm September 26th, 2008